Full Judgment
2. Contention of learned counsel for petitioner is that principal accused in present case is V.D. Bhatt, who was Branch Manager of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, Collectorate Branch, Bharatpur. Petitioner had availed of Over Draft facility in his account when co-accused V.D. Bhatt was Branch Manager of the Bank. At that time co-accused V.D. Bhatt took 12 signed Cheques from him towards security. All cheques were of the same series and given at the same time in the relationship of mutual faith and trust. Petitioner for the first time came to know about this incident from the newspapers and he immediately on 10.01.2009 wrote to the Assistant General Manager of the SBBJ, Bharatpur Zone, that co-accused V.D. Bhatt had taken 12 Cheques in such manner towards security.
3. Learned counsel submitted that co-accused V.D. Bhatt, in the similar manner, received signed Cheques from several other account holders, which have been recovered from him by the CBI. Except Sunder Singh, who did not earlier deposit the amount that was wrongfully withdrawn from his account, all others, namely, Om Prakash, Mahesh Chand, Pooran Singh, Smt. Amina and Sunder Singh, who deposited the amount, have been granted bail, though under Section 439 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel in support of his arguments cited certain judgments of Supreme Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra and Others (2011) 1 SCC 694, Ravindra Saxena v. State of Rajasthan - 2010 (2) SRJ 133 and State of U.P. Through C.B.I. S.P.E., Lucknow and Another v. R.K. Srivastava and Others - AIR 1989 SC 2222, and argued that filing of challan is not a bar for considering grant of anticipatory bail. Learned counsel has argued that petitioner has placed on record letter dated 11.04.2010 issued by the Branch Manager, SBBJ, Bharatpur, and two receipts showing that entire due amount has been deposited by petitioner. It is contended that since petitioner is a victim rather being an accused and, therefore, he should be extended benefit of anticipatory bail.
4. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner had fully cooperated with the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short, 'the CBI') during investigation, which itself did not arrest the petitioner, rather communicated to him vide letter dated 12.05.2010 to appear before the Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur, on 21.12.2010, when the challan was to be filed. Petitioner fell sick on that date. Certificate of sickness is on record. He therefore could not appear on that date. Co-accused Rajendra Kumar appeared and yet the learned Special Judge rejected his bail application. Shri Tej Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the CBI, opposed the bail application and argued that during course of investigation the petitioner had undertaken to appear before the Court of Special Judge, CBI Cases, when challan was to be filed. When he did not appear, the said court rightly issued his arrest warrant. The CBI did not arrest petitioner because till that time he was cooperating with investigation.
5. He submitted that all other accused, namely, Om Prakash, Mahesh Chand, Pooran Singh, Smt. Amla and Sunder Singh, who have been granted bail on depositing the amount wrongfully withdrawn from their accounts, have been extended benefit of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. It was the petitioner and Sunder Singh, who did not timely deposit the money. If the petitioner has now deposited the entire money, the CBI would have no objection provided petitioner appears before the Court of Special Judge, CBI cases, to join the further trial.
6. Learned counsel opposed the plea of petitioner on the ground of parity arguing that petitioner may appear before the trial court itself praying for converting the non-bail able warrant to bail able one citing example of bail granted to other four co-accused by the Court of Special Judge, CBI cases, himself. Having regard to aforesaid arguments, and in view of stand of the C.B.I. before this Court, this bail application is disposed of requiring the petitioner to appear before the Court of Special Judge, CBI cases, with the prayer to convert non-bail able warrant into bail able warrant and for granting benefit of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
7. The petitioner may appear before that court on 28.04.2011 with that prayer. The bail application stands disposed of.